
>*x 



X<? : 














;• & "* 



.> .. « *. ▼Jh 




0* ,-»,£. *c 



3*« %> <$> »J 




> aV **^ • 






^•> x^x y,^-> ,/\-^.\, >*.*&•> **.•&&,: 



r v * 










**0« 












*•"••* .*o 



^°^ . 






^0* 

* ^.*^te\ /&% ^••^Bfe-X ^° v 


































#<&:•/*+ SsJite.%. y.:^:..^ .^ A%\ y,:i 






a»9 









fe - X/^tot-X y$fe-\ **••&•% c sjg^*\ / - - <ife;-% 













^. *-"XT 4 .f. 








iV«* 







i** v k "- 















• ••* .A 




vv 



• «*' 









^ 




























"ot? 




,* v . 



£* ^ 



^°- 













» • • , >*"». .V ^- ' 






* A 



•X^ ,* .-. Sr&J x'tt's V^ , > 1 ' V*^V \-! 














°o 







BUREAU OF MINES 
INFORMATION CIRCULAR/1989 




Study of Zeta Potential for Material 
Particles in Chemical Additive 
Solutions 



By Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



Mission: As the Nation's principal conservation 
agency, the Department of the Interior has respon- 
sibility for most of our nationally-owned public 
lands and natural and cultural resources. This 
includes fostering wise use of our land and water 
resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, pre- 
serving the environmental and cultural values of 
our national parks and historical places, and pro- 
viding for the enjoyment of life through outdoor 
recreation. The Department assesses our energy 
and mineral resources and works to assure that 
their development is in the best interests of all 
our people. The Department also promotes the 
goals of the Take Pride in America campaign by 
encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibil- 
ity for the public lands and promoting citizen par- 
ticipation in their care. The Department also has 
a major responsibility for American Indian reser- 
vation communities and for people who live in 
Island Territories under U.S. Administration. 



Information Circular 9229 



Study of Zeta Potential for Material 
Particles in Chemical Additive 
Solutions 



By Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 
T S Ary, Director 



<o 



tx 



^ 



/^ 0? 



Or 



tp 



Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 



Watson, Pamela J. 

Study of zeta potential for material particles in chemical additive solutions / by 
Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski. 

(Information circular / Bureau of Mines; 9229) 

Bibliography: p. 11 

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27:9229. 

1. Zeta potential. 2. Water-Electric properties. 3. Solution (Chemistry). I. 
Tuzinski, Patrick A. II. Title. III. Series: Information circular (United States. 
Bureau of Mines); 9229. 

TN295.U4 [QD571] 622 s-dcl9 [541.3724] 89-600016 



O CONTENTS 

-^L Page 

-^ Abstract 1 

*"*"• Introduction 2 

Experimental laboratory procedure 2 

Zeta potential test equipment 2 

Zeta potential test procedure 4 

*J*\ Zero surface charge concentration determination 4 

> Results and discussion 7 

Effect of water quality on PZC concentration 9 

Effect of material composition on PZC concentration 9 

Effect of inorganic salt cation valence on PZC concentration 9 

Effect of anionic and nonionic additives on zeta potential 10 

Effect of anionic plus nonionic combinations on zeta potential 10 

Effect of excess cationic additive on zeta potential 10 

Conclusions 11 

References 11 

Appendix 12 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Stern layer schematic 3 

2. Example of graphical analysis 5 

3. Example of anionic additive results 6 

4. Example of nonionic additive results 6 

5. Example of A1C1 3 high concentration test 10 

TABLES 

1. Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDrW test series 4 

2. PZC concentrations as determined from graphical analysis for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDIW .... 5 

3. Values used in graph of Sioux Quartzite tests using anionic and nonionic additives 5 

4. Materials tested 7 

5. Additives tested 8 

6. Baseline waters 8 

A-l. Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type 12 

A-2. Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by additive 15 

A-3. Chemical analyses of waters used 17 

A-4. Oxide content of raw materials 18 

A-5. Chemical analyses of coal, diamond, and cobalt powder 19 

A-6. Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type 19 

A-7. Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive 22 

A-8. PZC zeta potential results for A1C1 3 when using pH modification 24 

A-9. Zeta potential test results for nonionic and anionic additives with Sioux Quartzite, and anionic 

additives with Mahogany granite 25 

A-10. Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO 27 

A-ll. Summary of zeta potential test results using combinations of anionic additives with nonionic PEO 32 

A- 12. Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDIW at higher than normal 

concentrations 34 



UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 


°C 


degree Celsius mol/L 


mole per liter 


g 


gram ppm 


part per million 


/iS/cm 


microsiemens per centimeter pet 


percent 


mL 


milliliter V/cm 


volt per centimeter 


mV 


millivolt 





STUDY OF ZETA POTENTIAL FOR MATERIAL PARTICLES 
IN CHEMICAL ADDITIVE SOLUTIONS 



1 * 

By Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski' 



ABSTRACT 

A novel technique has been employed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to determine the zeta potential 
of particles for a far-reaching series of material types in a wide variety of baseline waters, both alone 
and with many different chemical additives. The materials tested ranged from naturally occurring Sioux 
Quartzite and Tennessee marble to commercially produced magnesium oxide bricks. The waters tested 
ranged from ultrapure distilled, deionized water to municipal tap water and mine-site water. The 
chemical solutions tested included inorganic additives, such as aluminum chloride (AlCl 3 ) and sodium 
chloride (NaCl); organic additives, such as dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (DTAB); and nonionic 
polymers, such as polyethylene oxide (PEO). The results of precise zeta potential determinations have 
application in a large number of laboratory studies as well as in various mining and processing 
operations. 



fining engineer. 

2 Research geochemist. 

Twin Cities Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN. 



INTRODUCTION 



There are many areas of research and manufacturing 
that make use of either zero zeta potential or some other 
zeta potential value to control desired product properties. 
A knowledge of a system's unique zeta potential charac- 
teristics is therefore required to successfully perform many 
research or manufacturing tasks. Manufacturing and pro- 
duction applications for zeta potential range from pro- 
cessing techniques for such diverse items as paints and 
detergents (i) 3 to selective mineral flotation by cation or 
anion control (2-3). Optimum flocculation of turbidity- 
producing particles by zeta potential control is a critical 
aspect of municipal water treatment and purification sys- 
tems (4). Some research areas related to zeta potential 
include studies of hardness and dislocation mobilities of 
rocks and other materials (5), understanding the nature of 
rock weathering (6), characterizing differences between 
minerals of similar chemical composition (6), studies of 
rock penetration by diamond indenters (7), and the use of 
chemical additives in drilling fluids (8-9). 

With respect to chemical additives in drilling fluids, the 
Bureau found that optimized drilling performance could be 
obtained under zero zeta potential conditions (10). This 
zeta potential controlled drilling requires precise knowl- 
edge about the point of zero charge (PZC) concentration 
for a given fluid additive in relation to the rock being 
drilled. Because of the critical nature of this process, it 
was necessary to develop a way to accurately predict the 
PZC concentration for a given material-additive system. 
These results have also demonstrated that testing the zeta 
potential of ground particles does indeed represent the 
whole material zeta potential (10). At the PZC concen- 
tration demonstrated by the material particle tests, the 
performance of the drilling tests was maximized, as 
postulated by many researchers (5-10). 

The Stern model of the electrical double layer of ions 
can be employed to explain the electrical equilibrium state 
set up around a solid in a liquid phase. In that model, the 
solid has a rigidly fixed electrical charge and the innermost 
layer of ions, called the Stern layer, is a practically immo- 
bile layer of oppositely charged ions in the liquid phase 
that are absorbed on the solid. Farther away from the 
solid, next to the Stern layer, is the mobile diffuse layer 
of ions, which is composed of mobile positively and nega- 
tively charged ions in the liquid phase. This layer may 



have a net charge of the same or opposite sign from that 
of the Stern layer. 

The electrical potential difference that develops 
between the solid and the bulk solution (across the Stern 
and diffuse layers) is called the Nernst potential. This 
potential is the balance between the electrostatic attraction 
of the solution counter ions to the solid surface and their 
tendency to diffuse away from the surface. The potential 
drop that occurs across the diffuse layer is called the zeta 
potential and it is that potential that is readily varied 
through changes in bulk solution concentrations (see figure 
1). As the zeta potential drops to zero, the diffuse layer 
thickness approaches zero and the Nernst potential drop 
occurs totally within the Stern layer. Under these con- 
ditions, a PZC or zero surface charge (ZSC) exists on the 
solid surface. 

The zeta potential of materials in water of nearly 
neutral pH can be negative (usually the case) or positive 
(chrysotile and magnesium oxide). By adding cations or 
anions to the water, the magnitude of the charge on the 
material surface can be reduced until the zeta potential 
reaches zero. Continued addition of cations or anions will 
result in a zeta potential of increasing magnitude and 
opposite sign. 

The procedure developed by the Bureau and described 
herein is a unique and novel approach for zeta potential 
determinations. Most of the older methods used for deter- 
mining the zeta potential of any given material particle in 
a given solution rely on single tests of a unique fluid com- 
position. If the PZC concentration is to be known, several 
separate and discrete tests must be performed and the 
PZC concentration determined by interpolation, or worse 
by extrapolation. If there are any contaminants or foreign 
particles present during any single test, repeatable results 
may not be obtained in subsequent tests if the same con- 
taminant is not present or if other contaminants or foreign 
particles are present. In the technique described in this 
report, the zeta potentials can be determined for a com- 
plete range of additive concentrations with the same con- 
taminant levels being present at all the additive con- 
centrations. By adding small known increments of additive 
to the closed system, the PZC concentration can be pre- 
cisely determined in a simple calculation and subsequent 
graphing procedure. 



EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORY PROCEDURE 



ZETA POTENTIAL TEST EQUIPMENT 

The procedure for determining the zeta potential was 
the same regardless of the chemical additive or the water 



3 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references 
preceding the appendix at the end of this report. 



(distilled, deionized [DDIW]; tap; or mine) used for a 
baseline fluid. The same commercially available elec- 
trophoretic mobility-type apparatus was used for all the 
tests. 

The electrophoretic apparatus operates on the basis that 
the surface charge of a material particle is proportional to 
the speed of the particle in a fluid in an electric field. The 
zeta potential for each fluid concentration increment was 



+ + - 



+ + - + - + + + - + 

T~T~~ ::r ^\ + + 

+ - + ^s- + + 

+ + - + - \ + + - 

y- + + + - -+ \r + 

- + +/- + + + - + - A + 




Bulk of 
solution 



Electrial potential 
surrounding the 
particle 



Shear plane 



Figure 1. -Stern layer schematic. 



determined by following the movement of an individual 
material particle across a monitor screen in an electric 
field of 10 V/cm, matching the speed of a grid line on the 
screen to the particle speed, and noting the zeta potential 
as displayed on the digital readout. When using calcium 
chloride (CaCl 2 ), magnesium sulfate (MgS0 4 ), or sodium 
chloride (NaCl), the required high ionic strength led to 
electrolysis at 10 V/cm, therefore, 5 V/cm was used, with 
no loss of accuracy. 

Zeta potential values are temperature sensitive, which 
the zeta reader instrument accounts for in calculating the 
resulting, displayed zeta potential. All of the tests were 
conducted at room temperature, and the zeta reader was 
consistently between 25° and 40° C. The temperature 
values were noted for each test to assure that the test was 
conducted within that temperature range. 

A plastic beaker was used as the fluid-material particle 
reservoir for all of the tests in order to prevent erroneous 
values resulting from possible adherence of ions to a glass 
beaker. The baseline fluid-particle mixture was kept in 
suspension with a magnetic stirrer. However, when a 
magnetic (or suspected magnetic material) was tested, a 
stirring propeller ("milkshake" stirrer) was employed to 
prevent biasing the zeta potential results to nonmagnetic 
particles resulting from removal of magnetic particles by 
attraction to the magnetic stir bar. In fact, a few materials 
that were not originally thought to be magnetic proved to 
be; and those tests were repeated using the milkshake 
stirrer. 

ZETA POTENTIAL TEST PROCEDURE 

In preparation for each test, the zeta reader was 
cleaned by flushing ultrapure distilled, deionized water 
(DDIW) through the system until no particles were ob- 
served on the monitor screen and the specific conductance 
read <10 yLzS/cm. After thoroughly cleaning the plastic 
beaker, 1,000 mL of fresh baseline water was put in it and 
the appropriate stirring system employed. The apparatus 
intake and outflow tubes were placed in the water and the 
stirrer was started. Next, approximately 0.2 g of minus 
100-mesh crushed material particles was added to the 
baseline water. In the few cases (most notably Wausau 
quartzite) when the particles were very difficult to detect 
on the screen because of low optical density (semitrans- 
parent), 0.5 g of particles was added to make the tracking 
of particle movement easier. 

Thirty zeta potential determinations were made for 
material particles in the baseline water system. After this 
test was completed, a precise amount (0.01 to 1.0 mL) of 
the test additive was added to the system from a concen- 
trated stock solution, and again 30 zeta potential readings 
were made. Incremental additions of concentrated stock 
solution and zeta potential determinations (30) were con- 
tinued until the zeta potential value was positive for several 
concentrations or until a relatively high concentration of 



additive was added without attaining a positive zeta poten- 
tial reading, i.e., the zeta potential remained at or very 
near to zero or the zeta potential remained constant. 

For magnesium oxide (MgO) brick, the zeta potential 
of particles in DDIW is positive below a pH of 12.4. For 
those tests, the procedure was identical to that described, 
except that the MgO zeta potential in DDIW was initially 
positive and changed to negative with incremental addi- 
tions of an anionic additive. In tap water, however, the 
normally positive charge of MgO was more than neutral- 
ized by adsorbed anions from the tap water; the resulting 
initial zeta potential being negative as with most materials. 

Three separate tests were performed for each cationic 
additive. Because there was no PZC concentration to be 
determined, only one test was performed for the anionic 
and nonionic additives to indicate performance trends. 

ZERO SURFACE CHARGE 
CONCENTRATION DETERMINATION 

PZC concentrations were determined using the fol- 
lowing procedure. The 30 zeta potential determinations 
made in the baseline water and each additive concentration 
were respectively averaged. These average zeta potential 
values were then plotted as a function of additive con- 
centration. Table 1 lists the average zeta potential values 
for the series of tests for Sioux Quartzite with aluminum 
chloride (A1C1 3 ) in DDIW. These values (in millivolts) 
were plotted versus A1C1 3 concentration (in moles per 
liter). The best curve was drawn through the points of 
each test using a curve-fitting program, and the con- 
centration where the curve crossed the zero zeta potential 
line was taken as the PZC concentration. Figure 2 illus- 
trates these curves for the Sioux Quartzite-AlCl 3 -DDrW 
system. 

Table 1. -Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite 
with AICI 3 in DDIW test series, millivolts 

Additive cone, 10' 7 mol/L Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

DDIW -26.00 -25.50 -25.40 

1 -24.40 -20.60 -18.00 

3 -14.70 -12.50 -11.60 

6 -5.90 -3.90 -2.30 

10 11.00 10.30 18.50 

30 28.30 28.50 31.90 

60 35.70 35.70 45.40 

90 41.10 43.50 47.80 

DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 

For cationic additives, PZC concentration values were 
determined for each of the three replicate tests and then 
averaged to get a single PZC concentration for each 
material-additive system. Table 2 lists the average zeta 
potential values and the average PZC concentration for the 
Sioux Quartzite-AlCl 3 -DDIW system. This procedure was 
followed for all of the cationic additive tests. 



1 

2 

3 


-26.0 
-25.5 
-25.4 


7.4 
7.2 
6.5 


Av 


-25.6 


7.0 



Table 2.-P2C concentrations as determined from graphical 
analysis for Sioux Quartzite with AICI 3 in DDIW 

Test Zeta potential of PZC cone, 

particles in DDI W, mV ^Q 7 mol/L 

-26.0 
-25.5 
-25.4 

-25.6 

DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
PZC Point of zero charge. 

For anionic and nonionic additive tests, the graphing 
procedure was similar. The average zeta potential values 
for the single test were plotted versus additive concen- 
tration. Figure 3 is a representative graph for the results 
of Sioux Quartzite in the anionic surfactant, Nalco 8830, 
while figure 4 illustrates the results for Sioux Quartzite 
using the nonionic polymer, polyethylene oxide (PEO), 
with the values used in plotting the curves in these two 
figures listed in table 3. 



Table 3.-Values used in graph of Sioux 
Quartzite tests using anionic and nonionic additives 

Additive cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 

Anionic, Nalco 8830: 

DDIW -29.14 

1 -34.04 

5 -42.98 

10 -57.21 

100 -59.51 

190 -75.37 

Nonionic, PEO: 

Tap water -33.01 

1 -11.25 

3 -1.18 

7.48 .00 

12.4 .00 

122 .00 

DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 



> 

E 



LU 

r- 

o 

0- 



LU 
N 



60 



40- 



20- 



-20 



-40 





1 III 
KEY 


l i l i I I l 


I I I I I I 




□ Test 1 
A Test 2 
o Test 3 










Vy^^S^ 




I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 



10 
ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, 10" 7 mol/L 

Figure 2.-Example of graphical analysis. 



100 



-30 



-40- 



> 
E 

-J -50 - 

< 

H 
Z 
LU 

h- 

o 

Q- -60 
< 

I- 
u 

N 

-70h 



-80 



1 


1 1 1 1 1 


1 1 | 1 1 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 


1 1 Mil 


- 


^V^D 


D '*— «*» 




- 


" 






"*~~*^^ D 


~" 


1 


i i I I I 


III I i 


I I I 1 i I 1 i I 


i I i I I I 



10 100 

ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, ppm 
Figure 3.-Example of anionic additive results. 



1,000 




10 100 

ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, ppm 
Figure 4. -Example of nonionic additive results. 



1,000 



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 



The wide variety of materials, the diverse series of 
chemical additives, and the baseline waters used in these 
tests are listed in tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Test 
results and additional information is contained in the ap- 
pendix. Table A-l compiles the zeta potential tests per- 
formed for each additive categorized by material type, 
while table A-2 lists the same data for each material 
tested, categorized by chemical additive. Table A-3 is a 
compilation of the chemical analyses for the waters tested; 
table A-4 lists the oxide content of the materials tested; 
and table A-5 describes the special materials of coal, dia- 
mond, and cobalt. These tables are presented to explain 
the differences between the subsequent zeta potential 
results for the materials. The zeta potential and PZC 
values for cationic and anionic additives are listed by mat- 
erial type in table A-6 and by additive in table A-7. Table 
A-8 lists the pH modified zeta potential tests, table A-9 



lists the cationic nonionic, and anionic results for Sioux 
Quartzite and the anionic results for Mahogany granite, 
table A- 10 lists nonionic PEO results, table A-ll lists the 
results when using combinations of anionic additives with 
PEO, and table A- 12 lists the results when using an excess 
of additive. 

In comparing the results of these tests, several impor- 
tant and interesting correlations can be made from several 
critical factors in the zeta potential and PZC concentration 
determinations. These factors are water quality, material 
composition, inorganic additive cation valence, organic 
additive carbon-chain length, the effect of anionic and 
nonionic additives, the effect of anionic plus nonionic 
additive combinations, and the effect of excess cations on 
the zeta potential. These results given in the tables are 
discussed in the following sections. 



Table 4.-Materials tested 



Material 



Source 



Australian muscovite 

Barre Granite 

Biotite 

Charcoal granite 

Coal 

Cobalt 

Cobalt powder 

Diamond 

Dresser basalt 

Feldspar series (albite, andesine, anorthite, bytownite, 

microcline, and oligoclase). 
INCO section 275: 

Quartzite 

Pegmatite 

INCO 2800 level quartzite 

INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 

LCA pegmatite: Samples A and B 

Magnesium oxide brick °. 

Mahogany granite: 

Grindings 

Saw cuttings 

Minnesota taconite (whole, magnetic, and nonmagnetic 

fractions: Samples A, B, and C. 

Minntac taconite: Samples A and B 

Rockville Granite 

Salida granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Sudbury granite 

Tennessee marble 

Tungsten carbide: Powder and powder with 6 pet Co 

granules. 

Wausau quartzite 

Westerly Granite 



Purchased mineral sample. 

Barre, VT. 

Purchased mineral sample. 

St. Cloud, MN (known as St. Cloud Gray Granodiorite). 

Jim Walters Resources Coal Mine, Alabama. 

Purchased mineral sample. 

Hard Materials Research Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 

Purchased mineral sample. 

Dresser Mine, Dresser, Wl. 

Purchased mineral sample. 



Thompson Mine, Thompson, Manitoba, Canada. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Lithium Corporation of America (LCA) mine, Bessemer City, NO 
Sample from previous MgO research project. 

Dakota Granite Quarry, Milbank, SD. 

Do. 
Erie Mining Co., Hoyt Lakes, MN. 

Minntac Mine, Eveleth, MN. 

St. Cloud, MN. 

Denver, CO. 

Jasper Stone Quarry, Jasper, MN. 

Purchased mineral sample. 

Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. 

Holston Limestone formation, east Tennessee. 

Hard Materials Research Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 

Wisconsin. 
Bradford, Rl. 



Table 5.-Additives tested 



Additive 



Cone range 



Cationic: 

Aluminum chloride mol/L 

Aluminum nitrate mol/L 

Calcium chloride mol/L 

Magnesium sulfate mol/L 

Potassium aluminum sulfate mol/L 

Potassium chloride mol/L 

Sodium chloride mol/L 

Titanium iodide mol/L 

Zirconium chloride mol/L 

Zirconium nitrate mol/L 

DTAB mol/L 

HTAB mol/L 

TTAB mol/L 

Armac series (Akzo Chemie America) mol/L 

Nalco series (Nalco Corp.) mol/L 

Percol series (Allied Colloids, Inc.) mol/L 

Polyacrylamide (American Cyanamid) ppm 

Nonionic, ppm: 

Tergitol NPX (Union Carbide) 

Surfynol 465 (Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.) 

PEO (Union Carbide) 

HEC (Union Carbide) 

Revert (UOP Johnson, Inc.) 

Anionic, ppm: 

Biocut 2 

Polymer 

Solulube (Texaco) 

Vibrastop 

ZEP Lubeeze (ZEP Manufacturing Co.) 

Dromus B 2 

DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 

PEO Polyethylene oxide. 

TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

'Nalco 8830 was anionic. 

2 Supplied by Longyear Canada. 



1 X 10-1 
1 X 10" 7 -1 
1 X 10" 3 



X 10"- 
X10" 
X10" 



-1 
1 X 10'f-1 X 10 
-1 

-1 
-1 
-1 

-1 



1 X 10" 
1 X 10" 
1 X 10" : 
1 X10" 



X 

X 

X 

1 X 10" 7 -1 X 



1 X10" 



1 X10" 
1 X 10" 
1 X 10^-1 
1 X 10' 7 -1 
1 X 10" 7 -1 
0.01- 

0.1- 
0.1- 



xi<r 

X10" 1 
10° 
10" 4 
10" 4 
10 4 
X 10" 2 
X10" 3 



X10 u 
X 10"' 
X10" 
X 10" 



1 



10 
100 
125 
100 

- 100 

- 100 
100 

- 100 
100 

■20,000 

- 5,000 



Table 6.-Baseline waters 



Water 



Source 



DDIW . . . 
Tap water 



Mine water 



Quarry water 



Distilled, deionized water from still in laboratory. 

Minneapolis, MN-3 sources, fresh, and hot and cold left to stand overnight. 

Denver, CO. 

Dresser, Wl. 

Farmington, MN. 

Roanoke, VA. 

INCO Thompson Mine (Thompson, Manitoba, Canada). 

LCA (Lithium Corporation of America, Bessemer, NC). 

Erie Mining Co. (Hibbing, MN)-2 sources, well and pond, well water obtained 

in November 1986 and May 1987. 
Minntac Mine (Eveleth, MN). 
Dresser Mine (Dresser, Wl). 
Dakota Granite Company (Milbank, SD). 



EFFECT OF WATER QUALITY 
ON PZC CONCENTRATION 

With respect to water quality, the purer the water, the 
lesser amount of additive needed to neutralize the material 
surface charge and achieve the PZC condition. For exam- 
ple, in comparing DDIW and Minneapolis tap water re- 
sults for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 , the PZC concen- 
tration for DDrW was 7.0 x 10" 7 mol/L, while with tap 
water it was 4.5 x 10' 5 mol/L. The naturally occurring 
anions in the relatively hard and chemically treated 
Minneapolis tap water adsorb onto the material surface 
and drastically change the amount of Al +3 required to 
reach the PZC condition (tables A-6 and A-7). Because 
of the critical nature of water quality as demonstrated by 
these results, chemical analyses were conducted for all the 
waters tested. These analyses are listed in table A-3. The 
quality of the water will be a major determining factor in 
the zeta potential and ultimate PZC concentration. This 
phenomenon was observed in all the material-additive 
combinations tested in varying baseline waters (tables A- 
6 and A-7). 

For Al + ions, water pH is also important because of 
the propensity of Al 3+ ions to precipitate and flocculate as 
Al(OH) 3 above a certain pH. Several tests were conducted 
that used acid (HC1) to lower the pH of the water to a 
level where the Al 3+ ion was stable in solution. The pres- 
ence of the acid markedly affected the PZC concentration 
for all the materials tested in A1C1 3 , as was evident when 
comparing the PZC concentration values for Sioux 
Quartzite in tap water. Without pH modification, when 
the water was at pH of 7.0 to 8.0 the PZC concentration 
was 4.5 x 10" 5 mol/L. However, with addition of HC1 to 
keep the pH below 4.0, the PZC concentration rose to 
1.17 x 10 4 mol/L. Table A-8 lists the results for this 
series of tests using tap or mine water and A1C1 3 with pH 
modification to below 4.0. 

EFFECT OF MATERIAL COMPOSITION 
ON PZC CONCENTRATION 

It has been suggested in discussions with other re- 
searchers that the zeta potential for any material type 
would be very consistent; i.e., any granite would react the 
same to any specific additive. However, this research has 
shown that the zeta potential and PZC concentration val- 
ues are critically related to specific material composition, 
in addition to water quality. 

In tests of several different granites, the zeta potential 
and PZC concentrations in the same water with the same 
additive were quite different. The zeta potential for 
Charcoal granite in DDIW was -25.20 mV, while that for 
Westerly Granite was -18.20 mV. The resulting PZC 
concentrations were 1.40 x 10" 6 and 7.26 x 10' 7 mol/L, 
respectively. Even the slight difference in chemical 



composition between these two granites of similar miner- 
alogy made a considerable difference in the zeta potential 
and PZC concentration. 

This phenomenon was observed for all material types 
tested (tables A-6 and A-7) since they are composed of 
differing minerals and materials making up the whole 
material. Because of this factor, chemical analyses were 
obtained for most material particles tested to determine 
which minerals and oxides are present in each material 
(tables A-4 and A-5). 

A separate series of tests was conducted on an artificial 
material substance, MgO bricks. Magnesium oxide is 
known to have a positive zeta potential in pure water 
below a pH of 12.4. These tests were conducted to see if 
zeta potential modifiers could also be used to approach 
and obtain the PZC condition if the initial zeta potential 
of the material was positive. Using an anionic surfactant 
(Nalco 8830) in DDIW, a PZC condition was realized at 
2.15 x 10^ pet. When testing MgO brick in tap water, 
however, anions from the impure water adsorbed on the 
particles to give them negative surface charge just like the 
other materials with initial negative surface charge. Re- 
sults of these MgO brick tests are summarized in tables 
A-6, A-7, and A- 10. 

EFFECT OF INORGANIC SALT CATION VALENCE 
ON PZC CONCENTRATION 

It is evident from a comparison of results for cations 
of different valances (tables A-6 and A-7) that, in general, 
the higher the cation valence, the more effective the cation 
will be in producing the PZC condition. The exception is 
Zr 4+ ions which are not stable in aqueous solution and 
most likely react with an OH" ion to form the Zr(OH) 3+ 
ion in solution. Using Sioux Quartzite as an example, 
A1C1 3 caused a PZC to occur at 7.0 x 10" 7 mol/L for 
DDIW. However, using CaCl 2 in DDIW required much 
more additive, reaching the PZC at 1.6 x 10 " 2 mol/L, while 
NaCl required 2.17 x 10" 1 mol/L. This phenomenon held 
true for all material-additive suites tested, as well as for all 
waters tested. 

Because of an interest in other additives, and since most 
of the zeta potential tests concentrated on inorganic salts, 
a series of organic surfactants was also tested. Three long- 
carbon-chain surfactants were used: dodecyltrimethyl 
ammonium bromide (DTAB), tetradecyltrimethyl ammo- 
nium bromide (TTAB), and hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium 
bromide (HTAB). The resulting PZC concentrations for 
Sioux Quartzite in DDIW were 9.35 x 10" 4 mol/L for the 
12-carbon DTAB, 7.23 x 10' 5 mol/L for the 14-carbon 
TTAB, and 1.56 x 10" 6 mol/L for the 16-carbon HTAB. 
In this case, the longer-chain additives behaved like the 
higher valence additives. This again held true for all the 
materials tested with these three additives (tables A-6 and 
A-7). 



10 



EFFECT OF ANIONIC AND NONIONIC 
ADDITIVES ON ZETA POTENTIAL 

Another group of tests was conducted to determine the 
effect of anionic and nonionic additives on the material 
particles. As expected, the anionic additives produced a 
more negative zeta potential without attaining a PZC 
condition, while all but one of the nonionic additives 
produced no effect on the zeta potential at all. Table A- 
9 lists the results for several anionic and nonionic additives 
in which the zeta potential never reached a zero value, 
with figure 2 illustrating the results. 

The exception to those results was quite interesting and 
unique. Polyethylene oxide, being nominally nonionic and 
not expected to affect the zeta potential in any way, did 
achieve a ZSC concentration. In fact, the most interesting 
phenomenon is that the ZSC conditions remained constant 
after a certain concentration was reached, with the zeta 
potential not changing sign. Table A- 10 lists these results 
for a large suite of materials in various waters. These 
results are illustrated in figure 3 for Sioux Quartzite in tap 
water and are representative for all materials tested. 

EFFECT OF ANIONIC PLUS NONIONIC 
COMBINATIONS ON ZETA POTENTIAL 

Because of the success the nonionic PEO demonstrated 
in neutralizing surface charge, combinations of anionic 



additives with PEO were tested. ZEP Lubeeze is a cutting 
oil currently used in cutting or sawing of granite slabs, 
while Dromus B is used as a lubricating oil in drilling 
operations. Because both of these anionic agents are 
currently used in cutting-drilling operations, it was of in- 
terest to see what effect, if any, the PEO would have when 
added to solutions at concentrations used in the field. 
While requiring a bit more than when used alone, the 
PEO nevertheless still neutralized surface charge. The 
results for the two combinations tested, varying anionic 
additive concentration as a baseline and adding PEO until 
neutralization occurred, are summarized in table A-ll. 

EFFECT OF EXCESS CATIONIC ADDITIVE 
ON ZETA POTENTIAL 

The last test was conducted to see what effect, if any, 
very high concentrations (much stronger concentrations 
than required for the PZC condition) of cationic additive 
would have on the zeta potential and the PZC. Table A- 
12 lists the values for that test conducted to determine 
what those excess ions would do to the zeta potential for 
Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDIW; figure 5 illustrates 
the effect of those high zeta potential values. The excess 
ions only increased the zeta potential to a level that almost 
exceeded the limitations of the zeta reader, but did not 
create a measurable second PZC condition as had been 
predicted by surface science theory. 



> 
E 



UJ 

i- 
O 

CL 

< 

H 
LU 
N 



100 



80 



60 



40 



20 



-20 





1 1 1 1 I 1 


i ' I 


i i i i i i i i I 


I I II!!! II \_ 


I i i i i i i_e 




KEY 


I 








- 


D Test 1 
A Test 2 








- 


- 


O Test 3 




% / 


- 


- 


- 




V A 

' a 






- 


7 I i i I i I I i I I I I i i i m I i i I l I I M 1 I 1 1 l l 1 1 I 



10 100 1,000 

ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, 10* mol/L 



10.000 



Figure 5.-Example of AICI 3 high concentration test. 



11 



CONCLUSIONS 



This novel technique for the determination of the zeta 
potentials and the resulting PZC and/or ZSC concen- 
trations for materials in baseline water and additive so- 
lutions under many varied conditions should prove to be 
useful in other operations as well as in drilling, cutting, and 
grinding. Any needed zeta potential and/or PZC concen- 
tration values for a given system should be obtainable with 
the use of this closed-system technique and should prove 
to be very accurate, reliable, and repeatable. Any electro- 
phoretic mobility-type zeta potential equipment can be 
adapted to this technique. The zeta potential and PZC 
concentration values in this report, and the noted varia- 
tions in the values because of changes in additive and/or 
baseline waters, should further the understanding of how 
to control zeta potentials in many processes. 



Several conclusions can be drawn from the zeta poten- 
tial results by comparing the diversity of effect on the zeta 
potential caused by water quality, material type, cationic 
additives, anionic additives, and/or nonionic additives. The 
critical effect of each of these parameters must be con- 
sidered when determining zeta potentials and predicting 
PZC concentrations for any chemical additive-material 
system. Generalizations and close approximations can be 
made regarding the response of any particular material 
and/or additive in a zeta potential experiment. However, 
when precise or accurate zeta potentials and/or PZC 
concentrations are required, special care must be 
exercised. The use of the closed-system and graphing 
technique should yield those precise values required by the 
experimenter. 



REFERENCES 



1. Akers, R J. Zeta Potential and the Use of the Electrophoretic 
Mass Transport Analyzer. Am. Lab. (Fairfield, CT), v. 4, June 1972, 
pp. 41-53. 

2. Gaudin, A. M., and D. W. Fuerstenau. Quartz Flotation With 
Anionic Collectors. Min. Eng. (Littleton, CO), v. 202, Jan. 1955, 
pp. 66-72. 

3. . Quartz Flotation With Cationic Collectors. Min. Eng. 

(Littleton, CO), v. 202, Oct. 1955, pp. 958-962. 

4. Luce, R. W., and G. A. Porks. Point of Zero Charge of 
Weathered Forsterite. Chem. Geol., v. 12, 1973, pp. 147-153. 

5. Macmillan, N. H., R. D. Huntington, and A. R. C. Westwood. 
Relationship Between Zeta Potential and Dislocation Mobility. Martin 
Marietta Corp. (Baltimore, MD), MML Tech. Rep. 73-1 lc, July 1973, 
26 pp. 

6. Martinez, E., and G. L. Zucker. Asbestos Ore Body Minerals 
Studied by Zeta Potential Measurements. J. Phys. Chem., v. 64, 
July 1960, pp. 924-926. 



7. Engelmann, W. H., O. Terichow, and A. A. Selim. Zeta Potential 
and Pendulum Sclerometer Studies of Granite in a Solution 
Environment. BuMines RI 7048, 1967, 16 pp. 

8. Engelmann, W. H. Chemical Fragmentation. Sec. in SME 
Mining Engineering Handbook, ed. by A. B. Cummins and I. A. Given. 
Soc. Min. Eng. AIME (Littleton, CO), 1973, pp. 11-112-11-123. 

9. Watson, P. J., and W. H. Engelmann. Chemically Enhanced 
Drilling. An Annotated Tabulation of Published Results. BuMines 
IC 9039, 1985, 53 pp. 

10. Engelmann, W. H., P. J. Watson, P. A. Tuzinski, and J. E. 
Pahlman. Zeta Potential Control for Simultaneous Enhancement of 
Penetration Rates and Bit Life in Rock Drilling. BuMines RI 9103, 
1987, 18 pp. 



12 



APPENDIX 



Table A-1 .-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type 



Material 



Additive 



Australian muscovite 

Barre Granite 

Biotite 

Charcoal granite . . . 



Coal (Jim Walters Resources) 

Cobalt 

Cobalt powder 

Diamond 

Dresser basalt 



Feldspar series: 

Albite 

Andesine 

Anorthite 

Bytownite 

Microcline 

Oligoclase 

INCO section 275: 

Quartzite 

Pegmatite 

INCO 2800 level quartzite 

INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 
LCA pegmatite 

Samples A and B 

Sample A 

Magnesium oxide brick 

Mahogany granite: 

Grindings 

Saw cuttings 



Aluminum chloride. 

Aluminum nitrate. 

Potassium chloride. 

HTAB. 

PEO in Roanoke, VA, tap water. 

Aluminum chloride. 

Do. 
Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
Calcium chloride. 
Magnesium sulfate. 
Sodium chloride. 
Zirconium chloride. 
PEO in tap water. 

Do. 
Aluminum chloride. 
PEO in tap water. 
Aluminum chloride. 

Do. 
Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, city water. 
Aluminum chloride in mine water. 
Aluminum chloride, pH modified. 

Aluminum chloride. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

PEO in INCO tap water. 
PEO in tap water. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Aluminum chloride. 
Aluminum chloride in mine water. 
Aluminum nitrate. 
Aluminum nitrate in mine water. 
Aluminum chloride in mine water. 
Aluminum nitrate in mine water. 
PEO in mine water. 
Nalco 8830. 
PEO. 
PEO in tap water. 

PEO in Dakota Granite quarry water. 

Do. 
Anionic polymer in tap water. 
ZEP Lubeeze in tap water. 
ZEP Lubeeze in quarry water. 
ZEP Lubeeze plus PEO in quarry water. 



Minnesota taconite: 
Whole, magnetic, and nonmagnetic fractions: 

Samples A, B, and C 

Samples A and B 

Whole fractions: 
Samples A and B 



Aluminum chloride. 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water. 

Aluminum chloride in May mine water. 



Aluminum chloride, pH modified. 

Nalco 7132 in mine water. 

Percol 402 in mine water. 

PEO. 

PEO in tap water. 

PEO in mine water. 



See explanatory notes at end of table. 



13 



Table A-1 .-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type-Continued 

Material Additive 1 



Minntac taconite: 
Sample A 

Sample B 

Rockville Granite 



Salida granite . 
Sioux Quartzite 



South Dakota feldspar 



Sudbury granite . . 
Tennessee marble 



Aluminum chloride. 

PEO in mine water. 

Aluminum chloride. 

PEO in mine water. 

Aluminum chloride. 

Aluminum chloride in tap water. 

Calcium chloride. 

Magnesium sulfate. 

Sodium chloride. 

Zirconium chloride. 

DTAB. 

HTAB. 

TTAB. 

PEO in tap water. 

Aluminum chloride in Denver, CO, tap water, pH modified. 

PEO in Denver, CO, tap water. 

Aluminum chloride. 

Aluminum chloride in tap water. 

Aluminum chloride in tap water, pH modified. 

Aluminum chloride at high concentrations. 

Aluminum nitrate. 

Calcium chloride. 

Magnesium sulfate. 

Potassium aluminum sulfate. 

Sodium chloride. 

Titanium iodide. 

Zirconium chloride. 

Zirconium nitrate. 

DTAB. 

HTAB. 

HTAB in tap water. 

TTAB. 

Armac series. 

Nalco series. 

Percol series. 

Tergitol NPX. 

Surfynol 465 in tap water. 

Biocut in tap water. 

HEC in tap water. 

Revert in tap water. 

Soluble in tap water. 

Vibrastop in tap water. 

Polyacrylamide in tap water. 

PEO. 

PEO in tap water. 

PEO in Farmington, MN, tap water. 

Aluminum chloride. 

Calcium chloride. 

Magnesium sulfate. 

DTAB. 

HTAB. 

TTAB. 

PEO in tap water. 

PEO plus Dromus B in tap water. 

Aluminum chloride. 

Aluminum chloride in tap water. 

Calcium chloride. 

Magnesium sulfate. 

Sodium chloride. 

Titanium iodide. 

Zirconium chloride. 

Zirconium nitrate. 

DTAB. 

HTAB. 

TTAB. 

PEO in Farmington, MN, tap water. 



See explanatory notes at end of table. 



14 



Table A-1 .-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type-Continued 

Material Additive 1 



Tungsten carbide: 

Powder 

Powder with 6 pet Co granules 
Wausau quartzite 



Westerly Granite 



PEO in tap water. 

Do. 
Aluminum chloride. 
Calcium chloride. 
Magnesium sulfate. 
Sodium chloride. 
Zirconium chloride. 
Zirconium nitrate. 
DTAB. 
HTAB. 
TTAB. 

Aluminum chloride. 
Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
Calcium chloride. 
Magnesium sulfate. 
Sodium chloride. 
Zirconium chloride. 
PEO in tap water. 



DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 

DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 

PEO Polyethylene oxide. 

TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

1 A1! tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated. 



15 



Table A-2.-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by additive 



Additive 



Material 



Aluminum chloride 



Alumnium chloride in tap water 



Aluminum chloride, pH modified 

Aluminum chloride in LCA mine water 

Aluminum chloride in Erie mine water 

Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, tap water 

Aluminum chloride in Denver, CO, tap water, pH modified 

Aluminum chloride in Erie mine water, pH modified 

Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, city water 

Aluminum nitrate 

Aluminum nitrate in LCA mine water 

Calcium chloride 



Magnesium sulfate 



Potassium aluminum sulfate 

Potassium chloride 

Sodium chloride 



Titanium iodide . . 
Zirconium chloride 



Zirconium nitrate 



Australian muscovite. 
Biotite. 

Charcoal granite. 
Cobalt powder. 
Diamond. 
Dresser basalt. 
Feldspar series. 
LCA pegmatite. 
Minnesota taconite. 
Minntac samples A and B. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
South Dakota feldspar. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Westerly Granite. 
Charcoal granite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Tennessee marble. 
Westerly Granite. 
Dresser basalt. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
LCA pegmatite. 
Minnesota taconite. 
Dresser basalt. 
Salida granite. 
Minnesota taconite. 
Dresser basalt. 
Australian muscovite. 
LCA pegmatite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
LCA pegmatite. 
Charcoal granite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
South Dakota feldspar. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Westerly Granite. 
Charcoal granite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
South Dakota feldspar. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Westerly Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Australian muscovite. 
Charcoal granite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Westerly Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Tennessee marble. 
Charcoal granite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Westerly Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 



See explanatory notes at end of table. 



16 



Table A-2.-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by additive-Continued 



Additive 



Material 



DTAB 



HTAB 



HTAB in tap water 

TTAB 

Armac series 

Nalco series 

Nalco 7132 in Erie mine water 

Percol series 

Percol 402 in Erie mine water . 
Polyacrylamide in tap water . . 
Anionic polymer in tap water . 

Biocut in tap water 

Tergitol NPX 

Solulube in tap water 

Surfynol 465 in tap water 

Vibrastop in tap water 

ZEP Lubeeze in tap water 
ZEP Lubeeze in quarry water 

HEC in tap water 

Revert in tap water 

PEO 

PEO in tap water 



PEO in Roanoke, VA, tap water 

PEO in Denver, CO, tap water 

PEO in Farmington, MN, tap water 

PEO in INCO tap water 

PEO in LCA mine water 

PEO in Erie mine water 

PEO in Minntac mine water 

PEO in quarry water 

PEO plus Dromus B in tap water 

PEO plus ZEP Lube eze in quarry water 

DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 

DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 

HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

PEO Polyethylene oxide. 

TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

'All tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from 



Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
South Dakota feldspar. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Australian muscovite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
South Dakota feldspar. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
South Dakota feldspar. 
Tennessee marble. 
Wausau quartzite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 

Do. 
Minnesota taconite sample B. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Minnesota taconite sample B. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Mahogany granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Mahogany granite. 

Do. 
Sioux Quartzite. 

Do. 
Magnesium oxide brick. 
Minnesota taconite sample B. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Charcoal granite. 
Coal (Jim Walters Resources). 
Cobalt powder. 
INCO section 275 quartzite. 
INCO section 275 pegmatite. 
INCO 2800 level quartzite. 
INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore. 
Magnesium oxide brick. 
Minnesota taconite sample B. 
Rockville Granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Sudbury granite. 
Tungsten carbide powder. 
Tungsten carbide powder with 6 pet 

Co granules. 
Westerly Granite. 
Barre Granite. 
Salida granite. 
Sioux Quartzite. 
Tennessee marble. 
INCO section 275 quartzite. 
LCA pegmatite sample A. 
Minnesota taconite sample B. 
Minntac sample A. 
Minntac sample B. 
Mahogany granite. 
Sudbury granite. 
Mahogany granite. 



Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated. 



Table A-3. -Chemical analyses of waters used 



17 



Al, 
PPm 



Ca, 



Mg, 
PPm 



Mn, 
PPm 



Na, 
Pp™ 



K, 
ppm 



s<v 

pet 



Si, 
PPm 



CI", 

pet 



DDIW 

Tap water: 

Minneapolis, MN 

Denver, CO 

Dresser, Wl 

Farmington, MN (well) 

Roanoke, VA 

Mine water: 

LCA 

Erie, MN: 

November (well) 

May (well) 

Pond 

Minntac 

Dresser, Wl 

INCO 

Quarry water: Milbank, SD 

DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
ND Not determined. 



<0.02 



<0.02 



<0.01 



<0.02 



<0.50 



<0.50 <2.00 



0.54 



1.40 



.06 


20.80 


6.60 


<.10 


10.30 


2.20 


<.50 


3.30 


<5.00 


.06 


14.10 


2.40 


<.02 


ND 


.82 


ND 


3.20 


ND 


<.02 


47.90 


17.90 


<.02 


ND 


.83 


ND 


10.10 


ND 


ND 


49.00 


23.90 


<.10 


4.30 


1.00 


20.00 


6.50 


<5.00 


ND 


22.00 


4.10 


<.10 


4.20 


1.00 


23.00 


1.60 


<5.00 


<.02 


6.70 


3.50 


<.02 


ND 


.79 


ND 


9.50 


ND 


<.02 


123.10 


133.40 


<.02 


18.70 


13.90 


300.00 


6.40 


ND 


<.02 


113.00 


111.60 


<.02 


15.50 


13.60 


225.00 


5.20 


ND 


ND 


76.50 


45.20 


1.80 


40.00 


7.40 


121.00 


10.60 


54.50 


ND 


67.20 


94.30 


<.10 


44.40 


17.30 


.39 


<5.00 


36.00 


.02 


30.70 


11.30 


<.02 


ND 


.68 


ND 


5.80 


ND 


ND 


10.00 


1.80 


1.70 


7.40 


.84 


23.00 


5.80 


<5.00 


ND 


100.00 


58.00 


.22 


37.00 


8.80 


240.00 


4.20 


51.00 



18 



Table A-4.-0xide content of raw materials, percent 



SiO, 



AIA 



FeA 



FeO 



MgO 



CaO 



Na 2 Q 



Kfl 



Barre Granite 

Charcoal granite 

Dresser basalt 

Feldspar series: 

Albite 

Andesine 

Anorthite 

Bytownite 

Microcline 

Oligoclase 

INCO section 275: 

Pegmatite 

Quartzite 

INCO 2800 level quartzite 

INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 1 

LCA pegmatite 

Magnesium oxide brick 

Mahogany granite: 

Cuttings 

Grindings 

Minnesota taconite: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Sample C 

Minntac taconite 

Rockville Granite 

Salida granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Westerly Granite 

Wausau quartzite 

Barre Granite 

Charcoal granite 

Dresser basalt 

Feldspar series: 

Albite 

Andesine 

Anorthite 

Bytownite 

Microcline 

Oligoclase 

INCO section 275: 

Pegmatite 

Quartzite 

INCO 2800 level quartzite 

INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 1 

LCA pegmatite 

Magnesium oxide brick 

Mahogany granite: 

Cuttings 

Grindings 

Minnesota taconite: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Sample C 

Minntac taconite 

Rockville granite 

Salida granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Westerly Granite 

Wausau quartzite 

ND Not determined. 
Contains 11.4 ppm Ni. 



71.05 


13.80 


ND 


0.98 


0.86 


1.04 


3.98 


0.61 


67.41 


15.12 


2.32 


1.89 


2.32 


3.78 


2.84 


3.03 


47.39 


13.89 


6.65 


6.69 


6.30 


8.96 


2.43 


.50 


62.47 


21.35 


.29 


<.40 


<.17 


4.01 


8.76 


.69 


52.84 


24.50 


1.24 


<.40 


.40 


10.54 


4.31 


.64 


43.97 


34.77 


.87 


<.40 


.17 


21.06 


.54 


<.60 


48.56 


29.52 


.43 


<.40 


.32 


16.93 


2.50 


<.60 


65.46 


18.33 


.57 


<.40 


<.17 


.66 


4.85 


6.99 


64.61 


21.03 


<.29 


<.40 


<.17 


4.25 


8.31 


.40 


69.34 


15.03 


ND 


.21 


<.17 


.70 


.88 


9.08 


79.61 


5.01 


ND 


.81 


1.66 


2.87 


.20 


.80 


84.21 


6.33 


ND 


.61 


.27 


1.11 


1.82 


.24 


4.60 


1.14 


ND 


25.97 


.31 


.49 


.11 


.13 


72.84 


16.25 


.61 


ND 


<.17 


<.42 


3.10 


2.29 


1.42 


.68 


.56 


ND 


92.93 


.51 


<.07 


<.06 


68.91 


13.42 


ND 


1.93 


.96 


1.54 


.68 


4.66 


68.91 


13.42 


ND 


1.93 


.96 


1.54 


.68 


4.66 


35.30 


.30 


28.73 


22.26 


2.32 


3.50 


<.067 


<.06 


34.23 


.34 


27.16 


24.31 


1.82 


4.06 


<.067 


<.06 


40.65 


.87 


35.74 


14.28 


2.49 


2.24 


<.067 


<.06 


42.68 


1.18 


25.25 


19.36 


2.82 


.67 


.08 


.22 


65.03 


13.23 


1.75 


3.47 


.76 


2.94 


3.64 


4.34 


66.96 


13.98 


2.72 


.86 


.46 


1.68 


2.97 


5.90 


98.41 


.76 


.19 


<.40 


<.17 


.69 


.09 


<.06 


63.11 


18.43 


.16 


ND 


.33 


<.42 


5.80 


8.32 


<.21 


.23 


.21 


ND 


.76 


97.39 


<.067 


<.060 


68.24 


16.44 


.29 


2.19 


.78 


2.10 


4.04 


4.34 


94.66 


2.37 


.61 


ND 


.41 


<.42 


.18 


.20 


H ? 0" 


H ? 0" 


TiO, 


P,O s 


MnO 


BaO 


CO, 


U,0 


0.92 


0.23 


0.94 


ND 


<0.13 


<0.11 


ND 


ND 


.33 


<.1 


.75 


< 0.046 


.13 


<.11 


ND 


ND 


2.45 


<.10 


2.26 


<.046 


.19 


<.055 


2.86 


< 0.054 


ND 


<.10 


<.17 


<.02 


<.13 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


<.10 


.34 


.23 


<.13 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


<.1 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


<.10 


<.17 


.13 


<.13 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


<.1 


<.17 


.136 


<.13 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


<.10 


<.17 


<.02 


<.13 


ND 


ND 


ND 


.32 


.21 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


.26 


ND 


ND 


1.48 


.19 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


<.11 


ND 


ND 


.60 


.24 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


<.11 


ND 


ND 


13.20 


.16 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


<.11 


ND 


ND 


.80 


<.10 


<.33 


<.046 


.13 


<.11 


ND 


1.40 


3.85 


.61 


<.50 


<.05 


.03 


<.06 


.64 


ND 


.35 


.21 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


<.11 


ND 


ND 


.35 


.21 


<.17 


ND 


<.13 


<.11 


ND 


ND 


4.10 


<.10 


<.33 


<.046 


.72 


<.11 


ND 


<.22 


4.30 


<.10 


<.33 


<.046 


.80 


<.11 


ND 


<.22 


3.40 


<.1 


<.50 


<.046 


.90 


<.55 


5.86 


<.054 


5.85 


.34 


<.50 


<.05 


.34 


<.06 


2.25 


ND 


<.10 


.30 


.62 


<.05 


.08 


.21 


<.10 


ND 


.59 


<.10 


<.50 


<.046 


.04 


<.055 


.44 


<.054 


ND 


ND 


<.17 


<.02 


<.13 


<.11 


ND 


<.22 


.86 


<.10 


.62 


1.03 


<.03 


<.06 


<.10 


ND 


ND 


<.10 


<.33 


.30 


.05 


<.11 


ND 


<.22 


.60 


<.1 


.35 


<.046 


.09 


.17 


ND 


<.22 


.56 


<.10 


<.50 


<.05 


<.03 


<.06 


<.10 


ND 



Table A-5. -Chemical analyses of coal, diamond, and cobalt powder 



19 



Coal: 1 

Moisture 

Volatile 

Carbon: 

Total 

Fixed 

Ash 

S 

O 

H 

N 

^im Walters Resources. 



pet 

0.30 
21.70 

78.90 

67.30 

10.70 

.70 

3.40 

4.50 

1.40 



Coal^-Con. 
Carbon-Con. 

Al 

Si 

Fe 

Ca 

Mg 

Na 

Diamond: C 

Cobalt powder: Co 



pet 



1.80 

2.40 

1.10 

.20 

.10 

<.10 

100.00 

99.80 



Table A-6.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type 



Material and additive 1 
Australian muscovite: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum nitrate 

Potassium chloride 

HTAB 

Biotite: Aluminum chloride 

Charcoal granite: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in tap water 

Calcium chloride 

Magnesium sulfate 

Sodium chloride 

Zirconium chloride 

Cobalt: Aluminum chloride 

Diamond: Aluminum chloride 

Dresser basalt: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride, repeat 

Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, tap water . . 

Aluminum chloride in Dresser mine water 
Feldspar series: 

Albite: Aluminum chloride 

Andesine: Aluminum chloride 

Anorthite: Aluminum chloride 

Bytownite: Aluminum chloride 

Microcline: Aluminum chloride 

Oligoclase: Aluminum chloride 

LCA pegmatite: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in mine water 

Aluminum nitrate 

Aluminum nitrate in mine water 

LCA pegmatite sample A: 

Aluminum chloride in mine water 

Aluminum nitrate in mine water 

LCA pegmatite sample B: 

Aluminum chloride in mine water 

Aluminum nitrate in mine water 

Magnesium oxide brick: Nalco 8830 

MINNESOTA TACONITE 
Whole fraction: 

Sample A: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
Aluminum chloride in May mine water 

Sample B: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water 

Aluminum chloride in May mine water 

Nalco 7132 in mine water 

Percol 402 in mine water 

Sample C: Alumin um chloride 

See explanatory notes at end of table. 



Potential, mV 



PZC cone, mol/L 



-26.81 
-29.34 
-27.04 
-28.41 
-1 1 .74 

-25.20 
-19.00 
-23.50 
-21.80 
-22.60 
-27.10 
-19.91 
-20.63 

-18.25 
-37.03 
-23.04 
-22.23 

-21 .72 
-23.18 
-23.89 
-21.86 
-20.60 
-24.77 

-18.61 
-24.63 
-20.21 
-24.50 

-20.20 
-18.97 

-19.27 

-20.56 

17.61 



-17.45 
-20.78 
-19.14 

-17.29 
-19.38 
-19.63 
-34.70 
-35.20 
-24.89 



-7 



-2 



7.57 X 10' 
5.20 X 10 
9.50 X 10"' 
2.15 X 10"' 
3.03 X 10"' 

1.40 X 10"' 
3.53X10"-' 
1.60X10 
1.95 X 10" ; 
3.50 X 10"' 
2.15 X 10"' 
2.68 X 10"' 
2.09 X 10"' 



5.50 X 10"' 
9.80 X 10" 7 
1.33 X 10" 1 
1.50 X10" 4 

1.35 X10" 6 
4.10 X 10" 7 
4.00 X10' 7 
2.20 X10' 7 
1.65 X10' 6 
8.60 X10" 7 

7.30 X 10" 7 
7.38 X 10" 6 
1.47 X 10" 7 
3.25 X 10' 6 

7.33 X10" 6 
7.80 X 10" 6 

7.70 X 10" 6 
7.63 X 10" 6 
2.15 X10" 4 



1.40 X 10° 
1.38 X 10" 4 
1.65 X 10" 4 

1.20 X 10" 6 
1.36 X 10" 4 
1.80 X 10^ 
1.26 X 10"* 



1.40X10 



-6 



20 



Table A-6.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type-Continued 



Material and additive 1 
MINNESOTA TACONITE-Con. 
Magnetic fraction: 

Sample A: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
Aluminum chloride in May mine water 

Sample B: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
Aluminum chloride in May mine water 

Sample C: Aluminum chloride 

Nonmagnetic fraction: 

Sample A: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
Aluminum chloride in May mine water 

Sample B: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
Aluminum chloride in May mine water 

Sample C: Aluminum chloride 

Minntac taconite: 

Sample A: Aluminum chloride 

Sample B: Aluminum chloride 

Rockville Granite: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in tap water 

Calcium chloride 

Magnesium sulfate 

Sodium chloride 

Zirconium chloride 

DTAB 

HTAB 

TTAB 

Sioux Quartzite: 

Aluminum chloride 

Aluminum chloride in tap water 

Aluminum nitrate 

Calcium chloride 

Magnesium sulfate 

Potassium aluminum sulfate 

Sodium chloride 

Titanium iodide 

Zirconium chloride 

Zirconium nitrate 

DTAB 

HTAB 

HTAB in tap water 

TTAB 

Armac Cat 11 

Armac Cat 15 

Armac Cat 19 

Arquad 2C-75 

Nalco 7107 

Nalco 7132 

Nalco 8102 

Nalco 8852 

Percol 402 

Percol 403 

Percol 406 

Percol 408 

Polyacrylamide 

South Dakota feldspar: 

Aluminum chloride 

Calcium chloride 

Magnesium sulfate 

DTAB 

HTAB 

TTAB 

See explanatory notes at end of table. 



Potential, mV 



PZC cone, mol/L 



-18.85 
-19.40 
-20.44 

-14.88 
-19.87 
-20.34 
-20.59 



-16.07 
-19.34 
-20.47 

-15.72 
-20.21 
-20.18 
-32.45 

-27.59 
-27.94 

-24.70 
-17.70 
-19.15 
-13.40 
-23.00 
-25.70 
-20.80 
-23.80 
-22.90 

-25.60 
-20.40 
-21.38 
-22.20 
-19.70 
-26.35 
-21.90 
-26.30 
-21.80 
-23.60 
-22.40 
-22.83 
-31.85 
-20.72 
-30.48 
-29.59 
-29.78 
-30.14 
-25.69 
-27.65 
-28.19 
-26.95 
-29.78 
-27.03 
-30.24 
-31.06 
-43.56 

-22.10 
-11.30 
-11.67 
-17.10 
-20.10 
-17.60 



1.15 X 10 
1.38 X 10"" 
1.25 X 10 J 

6.80X10"' 
1.47X10"" 
1.50X10"" 
8.50X10' 



9.30 X 10' 7 
1.40 X 10" 4 
1.25X10^ 

9.80 X 10' 7 
1.43 X 10" 4 
1.40 X 10" 4 

1.39 X 10' 6 

3.25 X 10" 6 
3.52 X 10" 6 

1.24 X10" 6 
3.80 X 10' 5 
1.14 X10' 2 
1.85 X 10" 2 
3.38 X 10" 1 
1.42 X10" 6 
4.20 X 10" 4 

7.25 X 10" 7 
8.20 X10' 6 

6.82 X 10" 7 
4.50 X 10" 5 
4.33 X 10" 7 

1.60 X 10" 2 
1.95 X 10" 2 
7.88 X 10" 7 
2.17 X10" 1 

1.61 X10" 5 

1.40 X 10" 6 
1.50 X 10" 6 
9.35X10" 
1.56 X10" 6 
2.47 X 10" 5 
7.23 X 10 

2 5.35X10' 5 
2 1.83X10" 
V.OO X 10" 



-5 



2 1.43X10" 5 
2 5.73 X 10' 6 
2 1.13X 10" 5 



2 2.55 X 10" 5 

^.eo X 10 s 

3 0.250 

1.41 X10" 6 
8.80 X 10" 3 
9.60 X 10" 3 
7.40 X 10" 
3.97 X 10" 6 
6.80 X 10" 5 



21 



Table A-6.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type-Continued 



Material and additive 1 Potential, mV 

Tennessee marble: 

Aluminum chloride -7.94 

Aluminum chloride in tap water -5.50 

Calcium chloride -5.30 

Magnesium sulfate -5.50 

Sodium chloride -6.80 

Titanium iodide -5.55 

Zirconium chloride -4.90 

Zirconium nitrate -5.10 

DTAB -7.80 

HTAB -3.80 

TTAB -4.00 

Wausau quartzite: 

Aluminum chloride -14.60 

Calcium chloride -15.00 

Magnesium sulfate -12.30 

Sodium chloride -15.20 

Zirconium chloride -16.60 

Zirconium nitrate -15.60 

DTAB -18.30 

HTAB -16.40 

TTAB -15.60 

Westerly Granite: 

Aluminum chloride -18.20 

Aluminum chloride in tap water -15.10 

Calcium chloride -17.80 

Magnesium sulfate -15.30 

Sodium chloride -15.00 

Zirconium chloride -14.40 

DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 

DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

*AII tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated, 
came from each material's respective local mine area. 

2 Percent. 

3 Parts per million. 



PZC cone, mol/L 



1.93 X 10 
3.73 X 10" 5 
3.05 X 10" 3 
4.20 X 10" 3 
2.80 X10" 1 
1.51 X 10" 5 
5.80 X10" 7 
3.20 X10" 6 
1.30 X10" 3 
3.70 X10' 7 
5.15 X10" 6 

5.80 X 10" 7 
1.80 X10' 2 
2.30 X10" 2 
4.30 X10" 1 
8.40 X10' 7 
3.35 X10' 7 
2.60 X 10" 3 
3.35 X 10" 6 
5.40 X 10" 5 



-2 



7.26 X 10' 
2.40 X 10' : 
1.08 X 10 
1.38 X 10" z 
1.26 X 10" 1 
7.40 X 10" 7 



Mine waters used 



22 



Table A-7.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive 



Additive and material 1 

Aluminum chloride: 

Australian muscovite 

Biotite 

Charcoal granite 

Cobalt 

Diamond 

Dresser basalt 

Feldspar series: 

Albite 

Andesine 

Anorthite 

Bytownite 

Microcline 

Oligoclase 

LCA pegmatite 

Minnesota taconite: 
Whole fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Sample C 

Magnetic fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Sample C 

Nonmagnetic fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Sample C 

Minntac taconite: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

Westerly Granite 

Aluminum chloride in tap water: 

Charcoal granite 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

Tennessee marble 

Westerly Granite 

Aluminum chloride in mine water: 2 

Dresser basalt 

LCA pegmatite 

LCA pegmatite: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Aluminum chloride in November mine water: 
Minnesota taconite: 
Whole fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Magnetic fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Nonmagnetic fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Aluminum chloride in May mine water: 
Minnesota taconite: 
Whole fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Magnetic fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B , . , 

See explanatory notes at end of table. 



Potential, mV 



PZC cone, mol/L 



-26.81 
-11.74 
-25.20 
-19.91 
-20.63 
-18.25 

-21 .72 
-23.18 
-23.89 
-21.86 
-20.60 
-24.77 
-18.61 



-17.45 
-17.29 
-24.89 

-18.85 
-14.88 
-20.59 

-16.07 
-15.72 
-32.45 

-27.59 
-27.94 
-24.70 
-25.60 
-22.10 
-7.94 
-14.60 
-18.20 

-19.00 
-17.70 
-20.40 
-5.50 
-15.10 

-22.23 
-24.63 

-20.20 
-19.27 



-20.78 
-19.38 

-19.40 
-19.87 

-19.34 
-20.21 



-19.14 
-19.63 

-20.44 
-20.34 



7.57 X 10 
3.03 X10" 6 
1.40 X10" 6 
2.68 X 10" 6 

2.09 X 10" 6 
5.50 X 10" 7 

1.35 X10" 6 

4.10 X10" 7 
4.00 X 10" 7 
2.20 X 10" 7 
1.65 X10" 5 
8.60 X10" 7 
7.30 X10" 7 



1.40X10 
1.20X10"' 
1.40 X 10"' 



1.15 X 10 
6.80 X 10 
8.50 X 10" 



-7 



9.30 X10" 7 
9.80 X10' 7 
1.39 X 10" 7 



3.25 X 10 

3.52 X 10" 6 
1.24 X 10" 6 
6.82 X 10" 7 
1.41 X10" 6 
1.93 X10" 6 
5.80 X10" 6 

7.26 X 10" 7 

3.53 X 10" 5 
3.80 X 10" 5 
4.50 X 10" 5 
3.73 X 10" 5 
2.40 X 10" 5 



1.50 X 10" 
7.38 X 10 

7.33 X 10" 
7.70 X 10 



-6 



-6 



1.38 X 10" 4 
1.36 X 10" 4 

1.38X10" 
1.47 X10" 4 



1.40X10" 
1.43 X 10" 



1.65X10" 
1.80X10" 

1.25X10" 
1.50X10" 



23 



Table A-7.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive-Continued 



Additive and material 1 
Aluminum chloride in May mine water-Con. 

Minnesota taconite-Con. 
Nonmagnetic fraction: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, tap water: 

Dresser basalt 

Aluminum nitrate: 

Australian muscovite 

LCA pegmatite 

Sioux Quartzite 

Aluminum nitrate in LCA mine water: 

LCA pegmatite 

LCA pegmatite: 

Sample A 

Sample B 

Calcium chloride: 

Charcoal granite 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

Westerly Granite 

Magnesium sulfate: 

Charcoal granite 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite , 

Westerly Granite 

Potassium aluminum sulfate: Sioux Quartzite 
Potassium chloride: Australian muscovite . . , 
Sodium chloride: 

Charcoal granite 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

Westerly Granite 

Titanium iodide: 

Sioux Quartzite 

Tennessee marble 

Zirconium chloride: 

Charcoal granite 

Rockville Granite , 

Sioux Quartzite 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

Westerly Granite 

Zirconium nitrate: 

Sioux Quartzite , 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

DTAB: 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

HTAB: 

Australian muscovite 

Rockville Granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble 

Wausau quartzite 

HTAB in tap water: Sioux Quartzite , 

See explanatory notes at end of table. 



Potential, mV 



PZC cone, mol/L 



-20.47 
-20.18 

-23.04 

-29.34 
-20.21 
-21.38 

-24.50 

-18.97 
-20.56 

-23.50 
-19.15 
-22.20 
-11.30 
-5.30 
-15.00 
-17.80 

-21.80 
-13.40 
-19.70 
-11.67 
-5.50 
-12.30 
-15.30 
-26.35 
-27.04 

-22.60 
-23.00 
-21.90 
-6.80 
-15.20 
-15.00 

-26.30 
-5.55 

-27.10 
-25.70 
-21 .80 
-4.90 
-16.60 
-14.40 

-23.60 

-5.10 

-15.60 

-20.80 
-22.40 
-16.10 
-7.80 
-18.30 

-28.41 
-23.80 
-22.83 
-20.10 
-3.80 
-16.40 
-31.85 



1.25 X 10^ 
1.40 X 10" 4 

1.33 X10" 4 

5.20 X 10' 7 
1.47 X10" 7 
4.33 X10" 7 

3.25 X 10" 6 

7.80 X 10" 6 
7.63 X 10" 6 

1.60 X10' 2 
1.14 X 10" 2 
1.60 X10" 2 
8.80 X 10" 3 
3.05 X 10" 3 
1.80 X10" 2 
1.08 X 10" 2 

1.95 X10" 2 
1.85 X10" 2 
1.95 X10" 2 
9.60 X 10" 3 
4.20 X10" 3 



2.30 X 10"' 
1.38X10' : 
7.88 X 10' 
9.50X10' : 



3.50 X10" 1 
3.38 X10" 1 
2.17 X 10" 1 
2.80 X10" 1 
4.30 X 10" 2 
1.26 X 10" 1 

1.51 X 10" 5 
1.61 X10" 5 

2.15 X 10" 6 
1.42 X 10" 6 
1.40 X 10" 6 
5.80 X 10" 7 
8.40 X 10" 7 
7.40 X 10' 7 



1.50 X 10"' 
3.20 X 10"' 
3.35 X 10" 

4.20 X 10" 
9.35 X 10"" 
7.40 X 10" 
1.30 X 10"- 
2.60 X 10 



-3 



-6 



2.15 X 10 
7.25 X 10" 7 
1.56 X 10" 6 
3.97 X 10" 6 
3.70 X 10" 7 
3.35 X 10" 6 
2.47 X 10" 5 



24 



Table A-7.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive-Continued 



Additive and material 1 



Potential, mV 



PZC cone, mol/L 



TTAB: 

Rockville granite 

Sioux Quartzite 

South Dakota feldspar 

Tennessee marble . . . 

Wausau quartzite 
Armac series: 2 



Cat 11 
Cat 15 
Cat 19 



Sioux Quartzite 

Sioux Quartzite 

Sioux Quartzite 

Arquad 2C-75: Sioux Quartzite 

Nalco series: 2 

7107: Sioux Quartzite 

7132: Sioux Quartzite 

7132 in mine water: Minnesota taconite, 

whole fraction, sample B 

8102: Sioux Quartzite 

8830: Magnesium oxide brick 

8852: Sioux Quartzite 

Percol series: 2 

402: Sioux Quartzite 

402 in mine water: Minnesota taconite, 

whole fraction, sample B 

403: Sioux Quartzite 

406: Sioux Quartzite 

408: Sioux Quartzite 

Polyacrylamide: 3 Sioux Quartzite 



-22.90 
-20.72 
-17.60 
-4.00 
-15.60 

-30.48 
-29.59 
-29.78 
-30.14 

-25.69 
-27.65 

-34.70 

-28.19 

17.61 

-26.95 

-29.78 

-35.20 
-27.03 
-30.24 
-31.06 
-43.56 



DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 

J AII tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated, 
came from each material's respective local mine area. 
2 Concentration in percent. 
3 Concentration in parts per million. 



8.20X10 
7.23 X10" 5 
6.80 X10" 5 
5.15 X10" 6 
5.40 X 10 s 

5.35 X 10' 5 
1.83 X10" 4 
7.00 X IfJ 4 
2.23 X10' 5 

1.43 X10" 5 
5.73 X10" 6 

1.26 X10" 4 
1.13 X 10 s 
2.15X10^ 
1.33 X 10" 5 



2.40X10" 



6.37 X 10 
1.43 X 10"' 
2.55 X 10' ; 
7.60 X 10" ; 
0.250 



Mine waters used 



Table A-8.-PZC zeta potential results for AICI 3 when using pH modification 



Material and water tested 



Zeta potential, mV 



Before modification After modification 



AICI 3 cone, 
10"* mol/L 



Dresser basalt: Dresser, Wl, tap water .... 
Minnesota taconite: 
Whole fraction, sample A: 

Erie November mine water, pH 5.5 

Erie November mine water, pH 4.0 

Erie May mine water, pH 5.5 

Whole fraction, sample B: 

Erie November mine water, pH 5.5 

Erie November mine water, pH 4.40 .... 

Erie May mine water, pH 5.5 

Salida granite: Denver, CO, tap water .... 
Sioux Quartzite: 

Fresh Minneapolis tap water 1 

Cold Minneapolis tap water 2 

Hot Minneapolis tap water 3 

^resh, direct from cold water tap. 

2 From cold water tap, left to stand overnight. 

3 From hot water tap, left to stand overnight. 



-20.47 



-19.98 
-20.79 
-21.43 

-21.19 
-21.10 
-22.15 
-31.47 

-28.55 
-30.28 
-34.96 



-11.01 



-14.61 

-9.14 

-12.57 

-15.83 
-10.04 
-11.41 
-26.46 

-22.93 
-26.53 
-30.14 



1.13 



1.22 
.71 
.80 

1.13 

1.00 

.83 

1.20 

1.17 
1.87 
1.68 



25 



Table A-9.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic and anionic additives with Sioux Quartzite, 
and anionic additives with Mahogany granite 



Baseline water and additive cone, ppm 



Zeta potential, mV 



Standard deviation 



SIOUX QUARTZITE 



NONIONIC ADDITIVES 

Tap water before adding HEC 

HEC: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

Tap water before adding Revert 

Revert: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

Tap water before adding Surfynol 465 
Surfynol 465: 

0.1 

0.5 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

DDIW before adding Tergitol NPX 
Tergitol NPX: 

0.1 

0.5 

1 

5 

10 

ANIONIC ADDITIVES 

Tap water before adding Biocut 

Biocut: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

DDIW before adding Nalco 8830 

Nalco 8830: 

1 

5 

10 

100 

190 

Tap water before adding Solulube . . , 
Solulube: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

Tap water before adding Vibrastop . . 
Vibrastop: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 



-37.10 

-34.98 
-34.16 
-35.00 
-35.37 
-35.30 
-37.58 

-35.67 
-36.86 
-37.14 
-36.68 
-36.39 
-40.74 

-41.34 
-40.98 
-40.65 
-40.55 
-41.12 
-41.11 
-42.15 
-33.51 

-32.20 
-34.54 
-35.52 
-35.35 
-37.68 

-43.38 

-42.94 
-44.80 
-63.22 
-67.61 
-71.98 
-29.14 

-34.04 
-42.98 
-57.21 
-59.51 
-75.37 
-42.63 

-41.49 
-43.41 
-45.90 
-59.95 
-60.30 
-42.58 

-44.90 
-53.94 
-57.69 
-58.69 
-63.41 



±0.52 

±.43 
±.65 
±.36 
±.57 
±.60 
±.86 

±.39 
±.33 
±.39 
±.66 
±.60 
±1.80 

±.38 
±.47 
±.56 
±.56 
±.90 
±.49 
±.58 
±1.49 

±1.20 
±.98 
±.42 
±.64 
±.37 

±.36 

±.32 

±.58 
±.74 
±.67 
±.98 
±1.54 

±1.50 

±.88 

±2.49 

±1.96 

±.66 

±.56 

±.90 
±.33 
±.47 

±1.96 
±.45 

±1.29 

±1.92 
±.30 
±.42 

±2.13 
±.46 



26 



Table A-9.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic and anionic additives with Sioux Quartzite, 
and anionic additives with Mahogany granite-Continued 



Baseline water and additive cone, ppm 



Zeta potential, mV 



Standard deviation 



MAHOGANY GRANITE 



ANIONIC ADDITIVES 
Tap water before adding anionic polymer 
Anionic polymer: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

Tap water before adding ZEP Lubeeze . . 
ZEP Lubeeze: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

Quarry water before adding ZEP Lubeeze 
ZEP Lubeeze: 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

250 

500 

1 ,000 

2,500 

5,000 

10,000 

20,000 

DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 



-37.73 

-39.41 
-39.32 
-47.81 
-44.24 
-47.35 
-36.00 

-38.69 
-44.15 
-48.47 
-60.88 
-65.93 
-29.63 

-29.41 
-30.51 
-33.17 
-35.21 
-37.21 
-37.33 
-38.97 
-41 .73 
-43.90 
-44.75 
-46.84 
-47.31 



±0.24 

±1.37 
±1.19 
±1.01 
±2.23 
±.81 
±1.12 

±1.11 
±.76 
±1.03 
±1.42 
±1.87 
±.58 

±1.17 
±.51 
±.64 
±.47 
±.74 
±.98 
±.32 
±.96 
±.42 
±.34 
±.28 
±.43 



27 



Table A-1 0.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO 

(All tests conducted with 5 million molecular weight PEO and stock 
solution of 1 ,000 ppm unless otherwise noted) 



Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 

BARRE GRANITE 

ROANOKE, VA, TAP WATER 

Water -34.80 

1 -14.26 

5 -1.18 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

CHARCOAL GRANITE 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -32.22 

1 -13.55 

5 .00 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

COAL (JIM WALTERS RESOURCES) 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
6 million molecular weight PEO: 

Water -31 .47 

1 -10.28 

5 -1.68 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

COBALT POWDER 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -25.02 

1 -18.15 

5 -4.02 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

INCO SECTION 275 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
Quartzite: 

Water -33.54 

1 -11.70 

5 -4.54 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

Pegmatite: 

Water -36.59 

1 -17.35 

5 -4.12 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

INCO TAP WATER 
Quartzite: 

Water -31.15 

1 -10.50 

5 .00 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

INCO 2800 LEVEL QUARTZITE 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -33.50 

1 -11.01 

5 -4.33 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 



Standard deviation 



±1.80 
±1.33 
±.52 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



±1.41 
±1.74 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



±0.98 
±1.37 
±.32 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



t0.42 
±.57 
±.47 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



t0.52 
±.75 
±.29 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 

±.14 
±.89 
±.18 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



±.60 
±.41 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



t0.35 
±.31 
±.37 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



28 



Table A-1 0.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 

Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 

INCO 3400 LEVEL NICKEL-SULFIDE ORE 
MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -28.62 

1 -12.17 

5 -.99 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

LCA LITHIUM PEGMATITE 

LCA MINE WATER 

Water -27.40 

1 -6.78 

5 .00 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

MAGNESIUM OXIDE BRICK 

DDIW 

DDIW 18.92 

1 .00 

5 .00 

10 .00 

100 .00 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -6.81 

1 -3.54 

5 .00 

10 .00 

100 .00 

MAHOGANY GRANITE 

SOUTH DAKOTA GRANITE QUARRY WATER 
Grindings: 

Water -28.32 

1 -10.62 

5 -.92 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 .00 

Saw cuttings: 

Water -26.40 

1 -7.58 

5 .00 

10 .00 

50 .00 

100 XX) 

MINNESOTA TACONITE, SAMPLE B 

DDIW 

DDIW -31.54 

1 -17.43 

3 -11.74 

7.48 .00 

12.4 .00 

122 .00 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -33.60 

1 -23.35 

3 -6.59 

7.48 -6.10 

12.4 .00 

122 .00 

MINE WATER 

Water -40.68 

1 -10.29 

3 -2.37 

7.48 -2.29 

12.4 .00 

122 .00 



Standard deviation 



±0.26 
±.81 

±1.16 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



±0.85 
±.28 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



±0.59 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 

±1.21 
±.83 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



:0.48 
±.26 
±.35 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 

±.57 
±.26 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



t0.92 
±.59 
±.75 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 

t2.25 
±1.21 
±.44 
±.91 
±.00 
±.00 

±1.17 

±.59 
±.64 
±.94 
±.00 
±.00 



29 



Table A-10.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 



Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm 



Zeta potential, mV 



Standard deviation 



MINNTAC TACONITE 



MINE WATER 
Sample A: 

Water 

1 

3 

7.5 

12.5 

100 

Sample B: 

Water 

1 

3 

7.5 

12.5 

100 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

DENVER, CO, TAP WATER 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

bT3iw 

DDIW 

1 

3 

7.48 

12.4 

122 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water 

1 

3 

7.48 

12.4 

122 

Water 

1 

3 

5 

7.5 

10 

15 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 



-41.79 

-18.73 

-10.44 

-2.03 

.00 

.00 

-40.02 

-18.11 

-4.53 

.00 

.00 

.00 



±0.97 
±1.52 
±1.54 
±1.40 
±.00 
±.00 

±2.69 

±2.63 

±2.12 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 



ROCKVILLE GRANITE 



-29.57 

-13.01 

-1.90 

.00 

.00 

.00 



±1.14 
±1.68 
±.15 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



SALIDA GRANITE 



-28.34 

-11.61 

-4.22 

.00 

.00 

.00 



±0.41 
±.33 
±.75 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



SIOUX QUARTZITE 



-29.77 

-16.61 

-7.06 

-3.68 

-1.30 

.00 

-33.01 

-11.25 

-1.18 

.00 

.00 

.00 

-41.77 

-21.19 

-7.77 

-1.29 

.00 

.00 

.00 

-41.60 

-28.56 

-15.99 

-.93 

.00 

.00 

-41.83 

-32.24 

-13.01 

-.87 

.00 

.00 



±0.50 
±.95 
±.88 
±.77 
±.83 
±.00 

±1.69 

±1.29 

±.68 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 

±1.22 

±2.998 

±.69 

±.47 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 

±.39 

±.76 

±4.71 

±.64 

±.00 

±.00 

±.56 

±.71 

±2.65 

±.43 

±.00 

±.00 



30 



Table A-10.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 



Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm 



Zeta potential, mV 



Standard deviation 



SIOUX QUARTZITE-Continued 



MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER-Continued 
0.1 million molecular weight PEO: 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

0.4 million molecular weight PEO: 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

5 

100 

0.9 million molecular weight PEO: 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

6 million molecular weight PEO: 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

5 million molecular weight PEO made with 
isopropyl alcohol: 

Water 

1 

3 

5 

7.5 

10 

15 

100 

Water 

1 

3 

5 

7.5 

10 

15 

100 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER WITH IRON 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

FARMINGTON, MN, TAP WATER 

Water 

1 

5 

10 

50 

100 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water 

1 

5 

10 



-42.33 

-29.46 

-14.01 

-.73 

.00 

.00 

-42.86 

-30.24 

-14.20 

-.46 

0.00 

.00 

-44.05 

-28.75 

-12.98 

-.30 

.00 

.00 

-36.83 

-18.53 

-3.61 

.00 

.00 

.00 



-41.88 

-29.21 

-9.07 

-.47 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

-41.19 

-19.73 

-9.37 

-1.62 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

-41.70 

-18.76 

-9.30 

.00 

.00 

.00 

-35.75 
-10.41 
.00 
.00 
.00 
.00 



M.02 

±.57 
t2.56 
±.75 
±.00 
±.00 

±.58 
t1.49 
£2.09 
±.41 
±.00 
±.00 

£1.69 

£2.15 

£1.99 

±.49 

±.00 

±.00 

±.86 
±.44 
±.70 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



£1.55 

£1.63 

£1.99 

±.69 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 

£1.26 

±.58 

£1.08 

£1.03 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 

±.00 

±.53 
£2.03 
±.82 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 

±.40 
£2.59 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 
±.00 



SUDBURY GRANITE 



-32.86 

-14.37 

.00 

.00 



£1.29 
±.38 
±.00 
±.00 



31 

Table A-1 0.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 

Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV Standard deviation 

TENNESSEE MARBLE 
FARMINGTON, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -5.28 ±0.47 

1 -.90 ±.30 

5 .00 ±.00 

10 .00 ±.00 

50 .00 ±.00 

100 .00 ±m 

TUNGSTEN CARBIDE POWDER 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
Powder: 

Water -28.23 ±0.63 

1 -17.21 ±1.52 

5 .00 ± .00 

10 .00 ±.00 

50 .00 ±.00 

100 .00 ±.00 

Powder with 6 pet Co granules: 

Water -26.93 ±2.34 

1 -14.16 ±1.33 

5 -3.86 ± .46 

10 .00 ±.00 

50 .00 ±.00 

100 .00 ±JD0 

WESTERLY GRANITE 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 

Water -34.74 ± 1 .03 

1 -16.80 ±.39 

5 -2.65 ± .55 

10 .00 ±.00 

50 .00 ± .00 

100 .m ±M 

DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
PEO Polyethylene oxide. 



32 



Table A-1 1 .-Summary of zeta potential test results using combinations of anionic 
additives with nonionic PEO 



Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 

DROMUS B IN MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER-SUDBURY GRANITE 

DROMUS BAT 10 ppm 

Water -33.12 

Add 10 ppm Dromus B -40.92 

1 -28.67 

5 -12.77 

10 .00 

50 .00 

DROMUS B AT 50 ppm 

Water -33.66 

Add 50 ppm Dromus B -55.01 

1 -21.39 

10 -7.38 

20 .00 

50 .00 

DROMUS B AT 100 ppm 

Water -33.64 

Add 100 ppm Dromus B -61.61 

1 -31.67 

10 -12.78 

20 .00 

50 .00 

DROMUS B AT 250 ppm 

Water -33.78 

Add 250 ppm Dromus B -75.70 

1 -41.51 

10 -26.52 

30 .00 

50 .00 

DROMUS B AT 500 ppm 

Water -33.48 

Add 500 ppm Dromus B -79.30 

1 . -48.45 

10 -28.62 

35 .00 

50 .00 

DROMUS BAT 1,000 ppm 

Water -33.88 

Add 1,000 ppm Dromus B -81.25 

1 -60.65 

10 -43.49 

50 -15.81 

85 .00 

DROMUS B AT 2,500 ppm 

Water -34.16 

Add 2,500 ppm Dromus B -93.01 

1 -66.13 

10 -52.83 

50 -24.14 

100 .00 

DROMUS B AT 5,000 ppm 

Water -33.84 

Add 5,000 ppm Dromus B -95.23 

1 -66.87 

50 -15.19 

100 J00 

ZEP LUBEEZE IN SOUTH DAKOTA QUARRY WATER-MAHOGANY GRANITE 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 10 ppm 

Water -29.61 

Add 10 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -30.39 

1 -22.16 

5 -14.11 

10 -6.73 

15 -2.91 

30 .00 



Standard deviation 



±0.59 
±.40 
±.90 
±.74 
±.00 
±.00 

±.41 
±1.37 
±.97 
±.59 
±.00 
±.00 

±.51 
±.44 
±.47 
±.59 
±.00 
±.00 

±.44 
±.94 
±.96 
±.60 
±.00 
±.00 

±.78 
±.96 
±.55 
±1.22 
±.00 
±.00 

±.33 
±.88 
±.45 
±.71 
±2.26 
±.00 

±.48 

±.70 
±1.32 

±.38 
±1.20 

±.00 

±.70 
±.46 
±.22 
±.23 
±.00 



t0.28 
±.14 
±.25 
±.42 
±.58 
±.52 
±.00 



33 



Table A-1 1 .-Summary of zeta potential test results using combinations of anionic 
additives with nonionic PEO-Continued 



Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV Standard deviation 

ZEP LUBEEZE IN SOUTH DAKOTA QUARRY WATER-MAHOGANY GRANITE-Continued 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 50 ppm 

Water -29.44 ±0.52 

Add 50 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -31.62 ±.27 

1 -19.93 ±2.28 

10 -12.78 ± .72 

30 -3.44 ± .22 

45 .00 ±.00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 100 ppm 

Water -29.72 ±.35 

Add 100 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -32.44 ±.87 

1 -18.08 ±.43 

10 -12.52 ±.38 

30 -4.59 ±.45 

45 -1.69 ±.54 

60 .00 ±.00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 250 ppm 

Water -29.66 ±.22 

Add 250 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -34.14 ±.30 

1 -20.91 ±.73 

10 -12.43 ±.46 

30 -6.00 ± .36 

45 -3.33 ± .34 

60 .00 ±.00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 500 ppm 

Water -29.79 ± .22 

Add 500 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -34.79 ± .72 

1 -24.68 ±.19 

10 -16.11 ±.99 

30 -7.44 ±.36 

60 -1.34 ±.40 

75 .00 ±.00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 1,000 ppm 

Water -29.61 ± .28 

Add 1,000 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -35.48 ±.43 

1 -23.23 ±1.14 

10 -16.73 ± .64 

30 -12.09 ±.55 

60 -7.41 ± .72 

90 .00 ±.00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 2,500 ppm 

Water -29.40 ±.23 

Add 2,500 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -34.26 ± .72 

1 -22.36 ± .33 

10 -14.76 ±.63 

30 -9.02 ± .59 

60 -6.04 ±.35 

90 .00 ± .00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 5,000 ppm 

Water -29.61 ± .43 

Add 5,000 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -39.56 ± .29 

1 -27.32 ±1.16 

10 -16.91 ± .56 

30 -10.94 ± .46 

60 -7.74 ± .34 

90 .00 ±.00 

ZEP LUBEEZE AT 10,000 ppm 

Water -29.48 ± .36 

Add 10,000 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -35.28 ±1.24 

1 -22.18 ±.23 

10 -18.24 ±1.62 

30 -16.20 ±1.45 

90 -4.39 ± .46 

120 .00 ±.00 



PEO Polyethylene oxide. 



34 



Table A-1 2.-Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite with AICI 3 
in DDIW at higher than normal concentrations, millivolts 



Additive cone, mol/L Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

DDIW -24.91 -27.58 -27.49 

1.0 X 10" 7 -20.60 -21.24 -22.33 

1.0 X10" 6 18.14 21.21 23.79 

3.0 X 10" 6 70.87 69.04 67.30 

1.0 X 10" 5 80.88 85.05 85.60 

3.0 X 10" 5 87.09 87.24 94.94 

1.0 X 10" 4 94.28 92.31 96.65 

1.0 X 10" 3 98.91 98.63 99.36 



DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 



INT.BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA 28982 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 611-012/00,115 



Mi 



-o 
m 






z 




« -i <D • 


> 

r- 
3 


O 

TI 
TI 


Dep 

au o 

ES 

fiingl 


O 


o 


artm 
f Mil 
treet 
on, 


S3 


> 


°0 


r~ 


O- ? fl> 


3 
I 

=: 


03 

S 


nt of 
es 

N.W. 
.C. 


m 
c 

(A 

m 
I 

■4ft 


z 
m 


jo- ._ 




^ CO 


u 




tO <i> 


§ 




CO 2. 




o o 






o -• 



> 

z 
m 
O 



O 

TJ 
TJ 
O 
DO 



3 

m 



O 

-< 
m 

3D 



125 90 












> V » «. * »- ^ 



5*1$* \<HI ^1 '^rS " o^HSf- ^^ 














*~% 









V.ilV.V"" ^ 








^"\ 'JK- . ***** - % WW. : .<sf\ 



^ 










• a><* 



• ^ A^ »J< 

6? ^is 







.^^ A -*S ^» A^^. o% §?• C*< 



% 



f / V^v %-^v V^V %' 










^o< 









-ot^ 






.<£°** 







• %**':tit&.\f 



r 









** v \ 


















































r** 







♦*~** 



<°^ °* ^^t% ^.^fe-% X.^i.% 










V 6«»? 













HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 

^ FEB 90 

N. MANCHESTER, 
«^^ INDIANA 46962 









.i» ..^. 



o » e *<$i^ 



4°" \ 





